Keep the army out of Bangkok

[Mentors]

The Thai elites may not like it but the people support Thaksin-aligned parties. Bringing in the army is not the answer

 

It's not hard to identify the man at the centre of Thailand's latest political upheavals.

 

Influential sections of Thai society, generally identified as the wealthy urban elite, the military and royalists, have been trying to get rid of Thaksin Shinawatra ever since he first became prime minister in 2001.

Even though he now lives in exile, his banished shade haunts the streets of Bangkok.

 

An unsuccessful plot to blow up Thaksin's plane two months after his first election victory launched a decade of turmoil. He was re-elected by another landslide in 2005, only to face more judicial challenges, apparent assassination plots, and finally the military coup that ousted him in 2006.

 

The demonstrations that reached a new climax in the capital today have one central focus: a call for fresh elections, which pro-Thaksin parties would almost certainly win

 

Despite a recent court ruling that found him guilty of corruption and seized nearly £1bn of his assets, Thaksin remains the power to be reckoned with in Thai politics. "Brothers and sisters, don't give up. Don't fight for me. Fight for the country," he told his supporters at the weekend, speaking from an undisclosed overseas location. "I am a symbol of those bullied by the elite who do not care about democracy and justice."

 

Such statements smack of hyperbole. But Thailand's current prime minister, the Eton and Oxford-educated Abhisit Vejjajiva, is vulnerable to charges that he is a frontman for the vested interests of the Thai establishment. Abhisit did not gain office by popular vote but was installed at the end of 2008 after counter-demonstrations forced a pro-Thaksin coalition from office. Not long after, he was forced to declare a state of emergency to maintain his grip on power. Now he is adamantly resisting calls for new polls, thereby risking an escalation of the so far peaceful confrontation on the streets.

 

[color:red]As always in Thailand, where the military has taken over 18 times since the country became a constitutional monarchy in 1932, the army is never far away. Watching this latest drama play out is a 50,000-strong security force including soldiers and riot police deployed across Bangkok and surrounding provinces, the Bangkok Post reported.[/color]

The government has also invoked the Internal Security Act that allows the military to ban gatherings and impose curfews.

 

Given the impasse over new elections, and the decision by protesters belonging to the opposition United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship to symbolically shed their blood on the steps of Government House, it may not be long before involuntary bloodshed begins again in earnest, as happened last April.

 

A grenade attack on a military base has ratcheted up tensions. The prime minister, meanwhile, remains holed up at the 11th infantry regiment's barracks in Bangkok's Bangkhen district, which the defence minister and army chiefs are using as an emergency headquarters. Abhisit says he wants the situation resolved without violence. But police chief Amnuay Nimmano warned the demonstrators to watch what they say, implying they risk arrest for alleged incitement to unrest and libellous statements.

 

Thaksin's stance as champion of the people's freedoms must be taken with a large pinch of salt. His first term in office is remembered for a controversial drugs crackdown in which more than 2,000 people died; some, it was alleged, at the hands of government-licensed death squads. His failed attempt to end the low-level insurgency in Thailand's Muslim south was also widely criticised for brutality. His family's business dealings were always controversial and lie at the root of the corruption charges brought against him.

 

All the same, being ruled by democratically-elected governments seems to be important to the people of Thailand, north and south, rural and urban, as it is to other nations. The fact remains, unpalatable to those who revile Thaksin's populist politics, that he and his allies win elections whenever they are fairly and freely staged. This is also an important consideration for Thailand's regional and western allies. Next door, Burma provides a salutary warning of what the subversion of the democratic process and unfettered military rule can entail.

 

[color:red]Thailand's political stability is important, too, for the region as a whole, for curbing the international drugs trade, keeping Islamist fundamentalism at bay, and for sustaining the economic rebound that has begun to take hold in south-east Asia. Thailand's recent history amounts to persuasive proof of the un-wisdom of military interventions in democratic life. Any respite from current troubles is only temporary. The coup-meisters only make matters worse.[/color]

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/15/tthailand-protest-thaksin-bangkok

 

[Flashermac]

How can you keep the Army out of Bangkok? The city has expanded and swallowed up most of the Army's bases!

 

<< As always in Thailand, where the military has taken over 18 times since the country became a constitutional monarchy in 1932, the army is never far away. >>

 

Might have something to do with the fact that the Army ended the absolute monarchy by staging a coup. What a wonderfully democratic beginning.

 

 

[Guest]

Also, remember that no coup--or gunning down of students or other civilians--since the 1950s has happened without the behind-the-scenes approval of...well, you know.

[ThaiHome]

Wow, how many blatant untruths and half truths are in this piece?

 

Let’s count:

Influential sections of Thai society, generally identified as the wealthy urban elite, the military and royalists, have been trying to get rid of Thaksin Shinawatra ever since he first became prime minister in 2001.

 

Thaksin has always been part of this so called wealthy urban elite. In 2001, he had the full support or the military, the royalist, and the business community.

 

An unsuccessful plot to blow up Thaksin's plane two months after his first election victory launched a decade of turmoil. He was re-elected by another landslide in 2005, only to face more judicial challenges, apparent assassination plots, and finally the military coup that ousted him in 2006.

 

It has been confirmed by the US FAA investigators there was no bomb. An empty fuel tank exploded. This has happened to at least two other 737’s before and after.

The judical challenges he faced after the 2005 election was the fact that his party did not legally win enough seats in parliament to form a government.

There is a large amount of evidence that the Aug 2006 bomb threat was a setup by the Police (remember Thaksin’s connection to the Police).

At the time of the coup, Thaksin was a self appointed caretaker PM. They always forget tot say that.

 

 

The demonstrations that reached a new climax in the capital today have one central focus: a call for fresh elections, which pro-Thaksin parties would almost certainly win

 

There is no proof of that, and certainly the pro-Thaksin parties did not “win†the 2007 election (a fact almost always ignored). If they did win, why did they have to form a coalition? In the by-election held in Jan 2008, the pro-Thaksin parties got their asses kicked and lost every seat.

 

“I am a symbol of those bullied by the elite who do not care about democracy and justice."

 

This statement from Thaksin is just ludicrous and is a lot more then just "hyperbole". He is the master bully and a symbol for “justiceâ€Â. Give me a break.

 

 

Abhisit did not gain office by popular vote but was installed at the end of 2008 after counter-demonstrations forced a pro-Thaksin coalition from office.

 

The democrats had almost the same popular vote as the PPP in the 2007 election. The very same parties that had aligned with the PPP switched to a coalition with the Democrats. In a parliamentary system, this is not all that unusual.

The demonstrations did not force the coalition from office. A court ruling disbanded the PPP (and 2 other parties) because their key executives were convicted of vote buying. In the case of the PPP, there is a video tape of the executive (Yongyuth Tiyapairat, who was speaker of the house at that time and deputy leader fo the PPP) offering 100,000 baht to several kamnans to pass out in their villages. Nobody disputes he was buying votes. The 2007 constitution requires that if a party executive is convicted of vote buying the party must be disbanded. I personally think that is good thing.

 

 

Anyway, you get the idea. These people make no attempt to tell the whole storey and at time resort to outright falsehoods.

 

TH

 

 

 

 

 

[Julian2]

Unlike The Nation of course.

[ThaiHome]

Desperate strawman, obviously played because you cannot dispute any thing I say.

TH

[Flashermac]

Also, remember that no coup--or gunning down of students or other civilians--since the 1950s has happened without the behind-the-scenes approval of...well, you know.

 

 

Bull shit!

 

 

[ThaiHome]

Another person that seems to have misread what Handley was trying to say.

TH

[Julian2]

Desperate strawman, obviously played because you cannot dispute any thing I say.

TH

Strawman? Are we reduced to name calling now?

[ThaiHome]

Calling your response a strawman is name calling?

I was simply making the point that you did not address any of my facts. Instead you seemed to excuse the Guardians one sided, error riddled article by making a comment about The Nation.

 

TH